Jonathon Peros Council Staff
Jonathon Peros Council Staff Advisory Panel – March 21, 2018 Committee – March 22, 2018 Providence, Rhode Island 1
Meeting Outline Morning: Updates on FW29, other issues Overview of 2018 Priorities (Doc. 3) Monitoring and Catch Accounting (Doc. 5, B1, B2) LAGC IFQ Trip Limits – Sam Asci (Doc 4a & 4b, B2) Afternoon: Streamlining Spec Actions/Standard Defaults (Doc. 6) Modify Access Areas to be consistent with OHA2 (Doc. 7) Gear Modifications to Protect Small Scallops (Doc. 3) Northern Gulf of Maine (Doc. 3 and B3) 2
Anticipated Outcomes See page 2 of Doc. 2 – Memo from Vincent Balzano ~ 1. Provide input on the scope of each priority
Include tasking for the PDT
2. Consider modifications to the 2018
priority list (add standard default measures?) 3. Consider ranking on priorities What should Council and PDT work on first? Where should resources (time) flow?
3
2018 Scallop Priorities Today’s meeting: Overview of priority list, then staff will present background information on each item. Motions and consensus statements today. AP and Committee scheduled to “recap” input before
adjourning, may be a time to rank priorities. Outlook: 2018 will be a busy, crowded year. 4
5
Framework 29 Feb. 20, 2018 – NGOM Proposed Rule March 15, 2018 – Final Submission March 15, 2018 – FW29 Proposed Rule ~
NGOM Measures will be in place by April 1st Other FW29 measures likely to be in place around mid-April (May 1 at the latest) 6
Framework 29 Default Measures: 21.75 DAS and 1 MAAA trip for FT LA LAGC IFQ receive 75% of 2017 quota Current (2017) openings and closures remain
in effect until replaced by FW29 Once FW29 is in place, LA vessels have 60 days to finish their access area trips in area that are not allocated in 2018 (ex: CAII) 7
Scallop Benchmark – SAW/SARC 65 SAW Meeting #1 – Feb. 5 – 9, 2018 (Data Meeting) SAW Meeting #2 – March 26 – 29, 2018 SAW Meeting #3 – April 30 – May 4, 2018 SARC Meeting (Scallops and Herring) – June 26 – 29 Substantial overlap in membership of scallop PDT and
scallop stock assessment working group. All workgroup members participate in PDT process. Anticipate fewer scallop PDT meetings in first half of 2018 compared to 2016 and 2017.
8
Scallop Benchmark – SAW/SARC 65 Scallop SAW Workgroup: All participate in PDT process. Dr. Burton Shank (NEFSC) – Chair Dr. Dvora Hart (NEFSC) – Lead Assessment Scientist Dr. Jui-Han Chang (NEFSC) Dr. Bill DuPaul (Retired, College of William and Mary) Mr. Benjamin Galuardi (GARFO, APSD) Mr. Jonathon Peros (Council Staff) Dr. Dave Rudders (VIMS) Dr. Liese Siemann (CFF) Dr. Kevin Stokesbury (SMAST) 9
2019/2020 RSA Process RSA cycle for 2019 will start soon. Opportunity to prioritize scallop fishery research.
~ The Scallop Committee will meet in late May or June to
develop research priorities for the scallop fishery. Council approves RSA priorities at June meeting. Research groups submit proposals in the fall. Awards announced in the spring of 2019. 10
2019/2020 RSA Process - Changes NO RSA Share Day planned for 2018. Plan to invite some RSA talks at PDT this year. Why are we skipping 2018? Resource/time constraints with benchmark assessment Feedback loop still in place RSA projects were presented at the last benchmark
Incidental & discard mortality, growth, SH/MW, LPUE
Two AP meeting in May is challenging
Poor attendance in 2017: 9 out of 16 AP members came
Should we continue to hold RSA Share Day? 11
Federal Survey Dates for 2018 R/V Sharp Leg 1: May 15 – May 24 Leg 2: May 26 – June 4 Leg 3: June 6 – June 16 31 Total Days http://www.epscorideafoundation.org/
12
13
2018 Scallop Priorities 1. Specifications 2. Action to modify access areas consistent with 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
OHA2 NGOM management measures Consider increasing LAGC IFQ trip limits Gear modifications to protect small scallops Monitoring and catch accounting provisions Specify Allocation Review Triggers 2018 Scallop Benchmark In-season catch accounting, RSA support
14
2018 Priorities and Vehicles Each column represents a way to address each priority Specs Package
Framework
Amendment
Other Benchmark (SAW/SARC)
Specifications and Modify AAs LAGC IFQ Trip Limits
RSA Support
Gear Mods to Protect Small Scallops NGOM Management Measures
Tracking flatfish catch, coordinate with GF PDT
Monitoring and Catch Accounting Provisions HABITAT FW: Eastern GB?
Allocation Review Triggers?
Anticipated Outcomes See page 2 of Doc. 2 – Memo from Vincent Balzano ~ 1. Provide input on the scope of each priority
Include tasking for the PDT
2. Consider modifications to the 2018
priority list (add standard default measures?) 3. Consider ranking on priorities What should Council and PDT work on first? Where should resources (time) flow?
16
17
Monitoring and Catch Accounting LAGC IFQ program review found: Low compliance with VMS hail/notifications in
IFQ fishery Low number of monitored offloads Since the Council voted on this priority in
December 2017 several new monitoring and catch accounting issues have emerged. 18
Monitoring and Catch Accounting
https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply‐trade/carlos‐rafael‐faces‐nearly‐usd‐1‐million‐in‐fines‐in‐noaa‐civil‐action 19
Monitoring and Catch Accounting
20
Monitoring and Catch Accounting
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20180219/seized-scallops-bright-light-for-homeless-veterans-in-new-bedford
21
Monitoring and Catch Accounting
22
Monitoring ‘Strawman’ PDT discussed using ‘strawman’ approach to initiate
discussion on this issue. (Document 5, p.2 – Table 1) Ideas to spur conversations…need Council input.
Strawman for 3 issues. PROBLEM WHY WE THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM GOAL OBJECTIVE TACTIC/MEASURES 23
Issue #1: Hail Requirements PROBLEM: Poor compliance WHY WE THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM: Data from OLE re: VMS hail compliance GOAL: 100% Compliance with regulations OBJECTIVE: Improve from recent levels. TACTIC/MEASURES: ex: Council sends a letter to NMFS recommending… 24
Issue #2: Exceeding landing limits PROBLEMS: Lack of adherence to trip limits and allocations Unknown removals from the fishery
WHY WE THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM: NOAA civil penalties against Carlos Rafael, et al. Counts 21 – 35,
January 10, 2018 MA Environmental Police report of F/V Dinah Jane overage.
GOALS: 100% Compliance with regulations. Equity among fishery
participants. Dealer reports a true census of landings. OBJECTIVE: Full compliance with scallop regulations. TACTIC/MEASURES: …
25
Issue #3: Exceeding Quota PROBLEM: IFQ vessels participating in fishery with a negative quota balance. WHY WE THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM: OLE reminder to permit holders on 2/20/18 50 CFR 648.14(i)(4) states that it is unlawful to possess or land scallops in excess of a vessel's IFQ, or fish for scallops without IFQ GOAL: 100% Compliance with regulations. Equity among fishery participants. OBJECTIVE: Full compliance with scallop regulations. TACTIC/MEASURES: …
26
Northeast VMS Program Northeast Active VMS Vessel Population: ~945 Note: Most vessels hold multiple permits
Total Unique Scallop Vessels with VMS: ~720 About 76% of vessels that are required to use VMS can legally possess scallops All scallop permits (FT, PT, and all LAGC)
27
Scallop Landings The majority of scallop landings (~90%) are landed in the top 10
ports. Landings ports may vary depending on rotational management.
28
Landings: Number of Ports Data based on VTR reports Total ports where scallop
landings were reported ranged from 59 – 77 since 2010 (High: FY2016). The number of ports where less than 3 total scallop vessels reported landing ranged from 37 to 52 during the same time period (High: FY2016). 29
LA Access Area Fishing Distribution of landings per trip: The majority of LA FT vessels land the access area trip limit. LPUE for vessels taking more than one trip to access areas: The LPUE of LA FT is similar among vessels, irrespective of how many trips they took to fish an area. Days fished in AA for FT LA vessels: The number of days FT LA vessels fish an access area in not tightly concentrated, meaning that vessels spent a varying amount of time in each area (ex: between 25 and 50 days in the MAAA in 2015). 30
New Data on Compliance Council staff requested data on compliance with
VMS hails and notifications for LA and LAGC IFQ components. More data likely coming. PDT has not reviewed yet. Discuss at next meeting.
Thank you: Enforcement group at NOAA Fisheries
Bill Semaru and Team 31
VMS Pre-Land Compliance LA and LAGC IFQ Data Preliminary Pre-landing Notification Data Non-compliant: Vessel did not send their pre-land
notification.
Report run during 2017 FY, compliance rates
for this year are subject to change. Data: Total trips & non-compliant trips Access area and open are fishing 32
LAGC IFQ Pre-Land Notifications Non-Compliance – Access Area Trips # of TRIPS
3000
40% 35%
2500
30%
2000
25%
1500
20% 15%
1000
10%
500 0
5% 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Trips Non-Compliant Trips
2016 2017 % Non-Compliant
0% 33
LAGC IFQ Pre-Land Notifications Non-Compliance – Open Area Trips # of TRIPS 7000
45% 40%
6000
35%
5000
30%
4000
25%
3000
20% 15%
2000
10%
1000
5% 0%
0 2012
2013
Total Trips
2014
2015
Non-Compliant Trips
2016
2017
% Non-Compliant
34
LAGC IFQ Pre-Land Notifications Non-Compliance – ALL Trips # of TRIPS 8000
35%
7000
30%
6000
25%
5000
20%
4000
15%
3000
10%
2000 1000
5%
0
0% 2012
2013
Total Trips
2014
2015
Non-Compliant Trips
2016
2017
% Non-Compliant 35
Limited Access Pre-Land Notifications Non-Compliance – Access Area Trips # of TRIPS 25%
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2015 Total Trips
2016 Non-Compliant Trips
2017 % Non-Compliant 36
LA and LAGC IFQ Pre-Land Notifications Non-Compliance – Access Area Trips % of TRIPS 25% Report Run during 2017 FY
20%
2017 Compliance Rate Subject to Change
15% 10% 5% 0% 2015
2016
LAGC IFQ % Non-Compliance
2017 LA % Non-Compliance 37
PDT Discussion See PDT Meeting Summaries Looking for guidance on how to proceed, where to focus. Strawman to initiate discussion.
This ‘monitoring’ issue also feels like an enforcement issue. If so, perhaps some benefit from engaging OLE for input. IFQ Quota Overages: Regulations are already in place. A letter from the Council may be more appropriate vs. having the Council develop more measures. This could be true for other monitoring/enforement issues as well. 38
PDT Recommendation The PDT recommends that NMFS pursue
technical solutions to assist with quota compliance (ex: automatic notifications, updates on quota balance when vessels go to declarations/new PTNS system).
39
Anticipated Outcomes See Doc. 2 – Memo from Vincent Balzano ~ Consider PDT input, recommendations 1. Provide input on the scope of this priority Tasking for PDT Motions, Consensus Statements.
40
41
42
Standard Default Measures There are a number of decisions that the Council
makes on an annual basis during specifications process.
Some decisions have become fairly routine, and
mostly consistent year to year.
There may be some opportunity to streamline the
specifications process by developing standard default measures.
43
Standard Default Measures Potential Areas of Focus: Default measures for following FY LAGC IFQ allocations to access areas (ex: always 5.5% of the access area allocation?)
Part-time access area allocations Clarifying access area allocation timeline (12 months vs. 12
months + 60 days to finish AA trips) Clarify: Do we “open” and “close” areas, or are they always available. If we allocate to them they are open and if there is no allocation
they are closed. 44
Expected Benefits Expected benefits of developing standard defaults: Reduce number of decisions made by the Council at Final Action, and workload for PDT and staff to develop measures on an annual basis that have fairly predictable outcomes. Predictable outcomes for stakeholders.
45
PDT Recommendation See Feb. 28 PDT Meeting Summary
The PDT supports adding the concept of
streamlining scallop actions to the 2018 scallop priorities list.
46
Next Steps Issues for AP and Committee to address: This represents a “new” work item for 2018. Could be done as part of “Specs Package”
Does the AP/Committee want to recommend that the
Council add this to 2018 priorities? If so, What issues does the AP/Committee recommend work on?
Start with current list?
47
48
Overview Interest in revisiting access areas boundaries as a follow-up to
the approval of the Omnibus Habitat Amendment. Habitat portions of Closed Area I and the Nantucket Lightship recently became available. NMFS did not approve measures for eastern Georges Bank. There are several other issues that the Council may wish to consider as part of this priority. The appropriate vehicle (Framework vs. Amendment) will be
determined by the scope of issues addressed in this priority. 49
Potential Areas of Focus Modify existing access area boundaries Address scallop access on Eastern Georges Bank
(northern edge) HABITAT ACTION Revisit the rotational management principles of Amendment 10 Environmental changes and other issues post benchmark (SAW/SARC 65) Exploitable biomass vs. Effective biomass 50
PDT Input Important to review the performance of the FY 2018
before attempting a major changes to the management system. The Council may want to address this priority in a holistic way over multiple years. Unlikely to make substantial progress on this in one year. Explore using a “specs package” for 2019/2020.
The PDT could work on the development of a tool to
help identify areas where yield could improve year to year (“growth rule” candidate closures) 51
Next Steps For AP and Committee to Consider: What does the Council hope to achieve with this priority? Goals and objectives? Problem statement(s)? Holistic approach?
Based on the answer to #1 (above), what is the desired
timeline for completing work on this issue? Wait until after FY 2018 is complete and develop in 2019 (for
2020 implementation)? Align with habitat work on eastern Georges Bank? 52
53
Gear Modifications to Protect Small Scallops Seems to be a perennial priority – on list last several years Several projects have promise, though it does not appear
that protecting small scallops will be a major issue this year. PDT recommends removing this from the priority list in 2018, but consider in future years. Flounder Sweep
Low‐profile dredge
Extended links
Photo Credits: CFF
54
55
FW29 Rationale Rationale: Short term solution to allow controlled fishing
in the NGOM management area until a future action can be developed to address NGOM issues more holistically. Not intended to be permanent. NMFS recommended this remain a priority for 2018.
56
NGOM Management Measures Need input from Council on what issues to focus on. Develop goals and objectives and/or problem statement? Specific issues to consider? NGOM appendix included in FW29 submission documents
captures Council work in recent years. Anticipate that major changes (such as allocation) would require the development of an amendment. The 2018 benchmark may fold some areas in the Gulf of Maine into the SAMS model.
57
2017 Surveys of Jeffreys & Stellwagen (post fishing): 1.3 million lbs Model growth, M, and project forward to estimate exploitable biomass for 2018: ~1 million lbs
Set limit/cap overall removals 200,000 lbs TAC for 2018 LAGC TAC: 135,000 lbs
No change to existing regulations or reporting requirements
LA limit (RSA): 65,000 lbs
LA share available for RSA fishing only NO DAS fishing 58
Evolution of NGOM Management Setting Catch Limits Harvest Controls Scallop RSA
2008 – 2016
2017
2018+
Based on historic landings
UMaine/ DMR surveys
Based on surveys and forward projecting model
LA – DAS LAGC – Hard TAC
Overall limit for removals
OTHER research (lowest priority)
HIGHEST survey priority 59
2018 NGOM LAGC Fishery Active Vessels
Daily Landings
Days open
200 pound trip limit
50
10,000 lbs
~13
Fishery scheduled to
40
8,000 lbs
~17
30
6,000 lbs
~22
20
4,000 lbs
~34
10
2,000 lbs
~68
135,000 pound TAC
open April 1, 2018 ~675 total trips for LAGC vessels
60
Monitoring scalloping in NGOM The industry funded monitoring program established in the
scallop FMP covers LA and LAGC IFQ trips.
LAGC NGOM vessels are not part of this program, and do
not carry at-sea monitors.
The Scallop Committee has not discussed this topic. Unclear when this needs to be addressed. PDT Input: Monitoring program for NGOM should
compliment management program. Wait and see what new measures are developed before addressing this. 61
2018 Scallop Benchmark - GOM
Exploring ways to develop catch advice for NGOM using
available (survey) data. Area north of Provincetown, and Stellwagen Bank could become SAMS areas No change in how the assessment determines the status of the resource (still Georges Bank/Mid-Atlantic) 62
Anticipated Outcomes See page 2 of Doc. 2 – Memo from Vincent Balzano ~ 1. Provide input on the scope of each priority
Include tasking for the PDT
2. Consider modifications to the 2018
priority list (add standard default measures?) 3. Consider ranking on priorities What should Council and PDT work on first? Where should resources (time) flow?
63
64
Meeting Outline Morning: Updates on FW29, other issues Overview of 2018 Priorities (Doc. 3) Monitoring and Catch Accounting (Doc. 5, B1, B2) LAGC IFQ Trip Limits – Sam Asci (Doc 4a & 4b, B2) Afternoon: Streamlining Spec Actions/Standard Defaults (Doc. 6) Modify Access Areas to be consistent with OHA2 (Doc. 7) Gear Modifications to Protect Small Scallops (Doc. 3) Northern Gulf of Maine (Doc. 3 and B3) 2
Anticipated Outcomes See page 2 of Doc. 2 – Memo from Vincent Balzano ~ 1. Provide input on the scope of each priority
Include tasking for the PDT
2. Consider modifications to the 2018
priority list (add standard default measures?) 3. Consider ranking on priorities What should Council and PDT work on first? Where should resources (time) flow?
3
2018 Scallop Priorities Today’s meeting: Overview of priority list, then staff will present background information on each item. Motions and consensus statements today. AP and Committee scheduled to “recap” input before
adjourning, may be a time to rank priorities. Outlook: 2018 will be a busy, crowded year. 4
5
Framework 29 Feb. 20, 2018 – NGOM Proposed Rule March 15, 2018 – Final Submission March 15, 2018 – FW29 Proposed Rule ~
NGOM Measures will be in place by April 1st Other FW29 measures likely to be in place around mid-April (May 1 at the latest) 6
Framework 29 Default Measures: 21.75 DAS and 1 MAAA trip for FT LA LAGC IFQ receive 75% of 2017 quota Current (2017) openings and closures remain
in effect until replaced by FW29 Once FW29 is in place, LA vessels have 60 days to finish their access area trips in area that are not allocated in 2018 (ex: CAII) 7
Scallop Benchmark – SAW/SARC 65 SAW Meeting #1 – Feb. 5 – 9, 2018 (Data Meeting) SAW Meeting #2 – March 26 – 29, 2018 SAW Meeting #3 – April 30 – May 4, 2018 SARC Meeting (Scallops and Herring) – June 26 – 29 Substantial overlap in membership of scallop PDT and
scallop stock assessment working group. All workgroup members participate in PDT process. Anticipate fewer scallop PDT meetings in first half of 2018 compared to 2016 and 2017.
8
Scallop Benchmark – SAW/SARC 65 Scallop SAW Workgroup: All participate in PDT process. Dr. Burton Shank (NEFSC) – Chair Dr. Dvora Hart (NEFSC) – Lead Assessment Scientist Dr. Jui-Han Chang (NEFSC) Dr. Bill DuPaul (Retired, College of William and Mary) Mr. Benjamin Galuardi (GARFO, APSD) Mr. Jonathon Peros (Council Staff) Dr. Dave Rudders (VIMS) Dr. Liese Siemann (CFF) Dr. Kevin Stokesbury (SMAST) 9
2019/2020 RSA Process RSA cycle for 2019 will start soon. Opportunity to prioritize scallop fishery research.
~ The Scallop Committee will meet in late May or June to
develop research priorities for the scallop fishery. Council approves RSA priorities at June meeting. Research groups submit proposals in the fall. Awards announced in the spring of 2019. 10
2019/2020 RSA Process - Changes NO RSA Share Day planned for 2018. Plan to invite some RSA talks at PDT this year. Why are we skipping 2018? Resource/time constraints with benchmark assessment Feedback loop still in place RSA projects were presented at the last benchmark
Incidental & discard mortality, growth, SH/MW, LPUE
Two AP meeting in May is challenging
Poor attendance in 2017: 9 out of 16 AP members came
Should we continue to hold RSA Share Day? 11
Federal Survey Dates for 2018 R/V Sharp Leg 1: May 15 – May 24 Leg 2: May 26 – June 4 Leg 3: June 6 – June 16 31 Total Days http://www.epscorideafoundation.org/
12
13
2018 Scallop Priorities 1. Specifications 2. Action to modify access areas consistent with 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
OHA2 NGOM management measures Consider increasing LAGC IFQ trip limits Gear modifications to protect small scallops Monitoring and catch accounting provisions Specify Allocation Review Triggers 2018 Scallop Benchmark In-season catch accounting, RSA support
14
2018 Priorities and Vehicles Each column represents a way to address each priority Specs Package
Framework
Amendment
Other Benchmark (SAW/SARC)
Specifications and Modify AAs LAGC IFQ Trip Limits
RSA Support
Gear Mods to Protect Small Scallops NGOM Management Measures
Tracking flatfish catch, coordinate with GF PDT
Monitoring and Catch Accounting Provisions HABITAT FW: Eastern GB?
Allocation Review Triggers?
Anticipated Outcomes See page 2 of Doc. 2 – Memo from Vincent Balzano ~ 1. Provide input on the scope of each priority
Include tasking for the PDT
2. Consider modifications to the 2018
priority list (add standard default measures?) 3. Consider ranking on priorities What should Council and PDT work on first? Where should resources (time) flow?
16
17
Monitoring and Catch Accounting LAGC IFQ program review found: Low compliance with VMS hail/notifications in
IFQ fishery Low number of monitored offloads Since the Council voted on this priority in
December 2017 several new monitoring and catch accounting issues have emerged. 18
Monitoring and Catch Accounting
https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply‐trade/carlos‐rafael‐faces‐nearly‐usd‐1‐million‐in‐fines‐in‐noaa‐civil‐action 19
Monitoring and Catch Accounting
20
Monitoring and Catch Accounting
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20180219/seized-scallops-bright-light-for-homeless-veterans-in-new-bedford
21
Monitoring and Catch Accounting
22
Monitoring ‘Strawman’ PDT discussed using ‘strawman’ approach to initiate
discussion on this issue. (Document 5, p.2 – Table 1) Ideas to spur conversations…need Council input.
Strawman for 3 issues. PROBLEM WHY WE THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM GOAL OBJECTIVE TACTIC/MEASURES 23
Issue #1: Hail Requirements PROBLEM: Poor compliance WHY WE THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM: Data from OLE re: VMS hail compliance GOAL: 100% Compliance with regulations OBJECTIVE: Improve from recent levels. TACTIC/MEASURES: ex: Council sends a letter to NMFS recommending… 24
Issue #2: Exceeding landing limits PROBLEMS: Lack of adherence to trip limits and allocations Unknown removals from the fishery
WHY WE THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM: NOAA civil penalties against Carlos Rafael, et al. Counts 21 – 35,
January 10, 2018 MA Environmental Police report of F/V Dinah Jane overage.
GOALS: 100% Compliance with regulations. Equity among fishery
participants. Dealer reports a true census of landings. OBJECTIVE: Full compliance with scallop regulations. TACTIC/MEASURES: …
25
Issue #3: Exceeding Quota PROBLEM: IFQ vessels participating in fishery with a negative quota balance. WHY WE THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM: OLE reminder to permit holders on 2/20/18 50 CFR 648.14(i)(4) states that it is unlawful to possess or land scallops in excess of a vessel's IFQ, or fish for scallops without IFQ GOAL: 100% Compliance with regulations. Equity among fishery participants. OBJECTIVE: Full compliance with scallop regulations. TACTIC/MEASURES: …
26
Northeast VMS Program Northeast Active VMS Vessel Population: ~945 Note: Most vessels hold multiple permits
Total Unique Scallop Vessels with VMS: ~720 About 76% of vessels that are required to use VMS can legally possess scallops All scallop permits (FT, PT, and all LAGC)
27
Scallop Landings The majority of scallop landings (~90%) are landed in the top 10
ports. Landings ports may vary depending on rotational management.
28
Landings: Number of Ports Data based on VTR reports Total ports where scallop
landings were reported ranged from 59 – 77 since 2010 (High: FY2016). The number of ports where less than 3 total scallop vessels reported landing ranged from 37 to 52 during the same time period (High: FY2016). 29
LA Access Area Fishing Distribution of landings per trip: The majority of LA FT vessels land the access area trip limit. LPUE for vessels taking more than one trip to access areas: The LPUE of LA FT is similar among vessels, irrespective of how many trips they took to fish an area. Days fished in AA for FT LA vessels: The number of days FT LA vessels fish an access area in not tightly concentrated, meaning that vessels spent a varying amount of time in each area (ex: between 25 and 50 days in the MAAA in 2015). 30
New Data on Compliance Council staff requested data on compliance with
VMS hails and notifications for LA and LAGC IFQ components. More data likely coming. PDT has not reviewed yet. Discuss at next meeting.
Thank you: Enforcement group at NOAA Fisheries
Bill Semaru and Team 31
VMS Pre-Land Compliance LA and LAGC IFQ Data Preliminary Pre-landing Notification Data Non-compliant: Vessel did not send their pre-land
notification.
Report run during 2017 FY, compliance rates
for this year are subject to change. Data: Total trips & non-compliant trips Access area and open are fishing 32
LAGC IFQ Pre-Land Notifications Non-Compliance – Access Area Trips # of TRIPS
3000
40% 35%
2500
30%
2000
25%
1500
20% 15%
1000
10%
500 0
5% 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Trips Non-Compliant Trips
2016 2017 % Non-Compliant
0% 33
LAGC IFQ Pre-Land Notifications Non-Compliance – Open Area Trips # of TRIPS 7000
45% 40%
6000
35%
5000
30%
4000
25%
3000
20% 15%
2000
10%
1000
5% 0%
0 2012
2013
Total Trips
2014
2015
Non-Compliant Trips
2016
2017
% Non-Compliant
34
LAGC IFQ Pre-Land Notifications Non-Compliance – ALL Trips # of TRIPS 8000
35%
7000
30%
6000
25%
5000
20%
4000
15%
3000
10%
2000 1000
5%
0
0% 2012
2013
Total Trips
2014
2015
Non-Compliant Trips
2016
2017
% Non-Compliant 35
Limited Access Pre-Land Notifications Non-Compliance – Access Area Trips # of TRIPS 25%
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2015 Total Trips
2016 Non-Compliant Trips
2017 % Non-Compliant 36
LA and LAGC IFQ Pre-Land Notifications Non-Compliance – Access Area Trips % of TRIPS 25% Report Run during 2017 FY
20%
2017 Compliance Rate Subject to Change
15% 10% 5% 0% 2015
2016
LAGC IFQ % Non-Compliance
2017 LA % Non-Compliance 37
PDT Discussion See PDT Meeting Summaries Looking for guidance on how to proceed, where to focus. Strawman to initiate discussion.
This ‘monitoring’ issue also feels like an enforcement issue. If so, perhaps some benefit from engaging OLE for input. IFQ Quota Overages: Regulations are already in place. A letter from the Council may be more appropriate vs. having the Council develop more measures. This could be true for other monitoring/enforement issues as well. 38
PDT Recommendation The PDT recommends that NMFS pursue
technical solutions to assist with quota compliance (ex: automatic notifications, updates on quota balance when vessels go to declarations/new PTNS system).
39
Anticipated Outcomes See Doc. 2 – Memo from Vincent Balzano ~ Consider PDT input, recommendations 1. Provide input on the scope of this priority Tasking for PDT Motions, Consensus Statements.
40
41
42
Standard Default Measures There are a number of decisions that the Council
makes on an annual basis during specifications process.
Some decisions have become fairly routine, and
mostly consistent year to year.
There may be some opportunity to streamline the
specifications process by developing standard default measures.
43
Standard Default Measures Potential Areas of Focus: Default measures for following FY LAGC IFQ allocations to access areas (ex: always 5.5% of the access area allocation?)
Part-time access area allocations Clarifying access area allocation timeline (12 months vs. 12
months + 60 days to finish AA trips) Clarify: Do we “open” and “close” areas, or are they always available. If we allocate to them they are open and if there is no allocation
they are closed. 44
Expected Benefits Expected benefits of developing standard defaults: Reduce number of decisions made by the Council at Final Action, and workload for PDT and staff to develop measures on an annual basis that have fairly predictable outcomes. Predictable outcomes for stakeholders.
45
PDT Recommendation See Feb. 28 PDT Meeting Summary
The PDT supports adding the concept of
streamlining scallop actions to the 2018 scallop priorities list.
46
Next Steps Issues for AP and Committee to address: This represents a “new” work item for 2018. Could be done as part of “Specs Package”
Does the AP/Committee want to recommend that the
Council add this to 2018 priorities? If so, What issues does the AP/Committee recommend work on?
Start with current list?
47
48
Overview Interest in revisiting access areas boundaries as a follow-up to
the approval of the Omnibus Habitat Amendment. Habitat portions of Closed Area I and the Nantucket Lightship recently became available. NMFS did not approve measures for eastern Georges Bank. There are several other issues that the Council may wish to consider as part of this priority. The appropriate vehicle (Framework vs. Amendment) will be
determined by the scope of issues addressed in this priority. 49
Potential Areas of Focus Modify existing access area boundaries Address scallop access on Eastern Georges Bank
(northern edge) HABITAT ACTION Revisit the rotational management principles of Amendment 10 Environmental changes and other issues post benchmark (SAW/SARC 65) Exploitable biomass vs. Effective biomass 50
PDT Input Important to review the performance of the FY 2018
before attempting a major changes to the management system. The Council may want to address this priority in a holistic way over multiple years. Unlikely to make substantial progress on this in one year. Explore using a “specs package” for 2019/2020.
The PDT could work on the development of a tool to
help identify areas where yield could improve year to year (“growth rule” candidate closures) 51
Next Steps For AP and Committee to Consider: What does the Council hope to achieve with this priority? Goals and objectives? Problem statement(s)? Holistic approach?
Based on the answer to #1 (above), what is the desired
timeline for completing work on this issue? Wait until after FY 2018 is complete and develop in 2019 (for
2020 implementation)? Align with habitat work on eastern Georges Bank? 52
53
Gear Modifications to Protect Small Scallops Seems to be a perennial priority – on list last several years Several projects have promise, though it does not appear
that protecting small scallops will be a major issue this year. PDT recommends removing this from the priority list in 2018, but consider in future years. Flounder Sweep
Low‐profile dredge
Extended links
Photo Credits: CFF
54
55
FW29 Rationale Rationale: Short term solution to allow controlled fishing
in the NGOM management area until a future action can be developed to address NGOM issues more holistically. Not intended to be permanent. NMFS recommended this remain a priority for 2018.
56
NGOM Management Measures Need input from Council on what issues to focus on. Develop goals and objectives and/or problem statement? Specific issues to consider? NGOM appendix included in FW29 submission documents
captures Council work in recent years. Anticipate that major changes (such as allocation) would require the development of an amendment. The 2018 benchmark may fold some areas in the Gulf of Maine into the SAMS model.
57
2017 Surveys of Jeffreys & Stellwagen (post fishing): 1.3 million lbs Model growth, M, and project forward to estimate exploitable biomass for 2018: ~1 million lbs
Set limit/cap overall removals 200,000 lbs TAC for 2018 LAGC TAC: 135,000 lbs
No change to existing regulations or reporting requirements
LA limit (RSA): 65,000 lbs
LA share available for RSA fishing only NO DAS fishing 58
Evolution of NGOM Management Setting Catch Limits Harvest Controls Scallop RSA
2008 – 2016
2017
2018+
Based on historic landings
UMaine/ DMR surveys
Based on surveys and forward projecting model
LA – DAS LAGC – Hard TAC
Overall limit for removals
OTHER research (lowest priority)
HIGHEST survey priority 59
2018 NGOM LAGC Fishery Active Vessels
Daily Landings
Days open
200 pound trip limit
50
10,000 lbs
~13
Fishery scheduled to
40
8,000 lbs
~17
30
6,000 lbs
~22
20
4,000 lbs
~34
10
2,000 lbs
~68
135,000 pound TAC
open April 1, 2018 ~675 total trips for LAGC vessels
60
Monitoring scalloping in NGOM The industry funded monitoring program established in the
scallop FMP covers LA and LAGC IFQ trips.
LAGC NGOM vessels are not part of this program, and do
not carry at-sea monitors.
The Scallop Committee has not discussed this topic. Unclear when this needs to be addressed. PDT Input: Monitoring program for NGOM should
compliment management program. Wait and see what new measures are developed before addressing this. 61
2018 Scallop Benchmark - GOM
Exploring ways to develop catch advice for NGOM using
available (survey) data. Area north of Provincetown, and Stellwagen Bank could become SAMS areas No change in how the assessment determines the status of the resource (still Georges Bank/Mid-Atlantic) 62
Anticipated Outcomes See page 2 of Doc. 2 – Memo from Vincent Balzano ~ 1. Provide input on the scope of each priority
Include tasking for the PDT
2. Consider modifications to the 2018
priority list (add standard default measures?) 3. Consider ranking on priorities What should Council and PDT work on first? Where should resources (time) flow?
63
64
